Clinical Outcomes of Three versus Four Mini-Implants Retaining Mandibular Overdenture: A 5-Year Randomized Clinical Trial.

Background and Objectives: Due to a lack of long-term clinical studies that would clarify whether the insertion of three mini-implants (MDIs) can be as successful treatment as the insertion of four MDIs for the retention of mandibular overdentures (ODs), this 5-year prospective cohort study was set up. Materials and Methods: Participants (n = 83) randomly received either four or three MDIs and a mandibular OD. Clinical examinations were performed at the baseline, as well as after one, three, and five years, respectively. A total of 73 participants (38 in the four-MDI and 35 in the three-MDI groups) partook in the study. The marginal bone level change, success and survival rates, and prosthodontic maintenance were assessed. Results: Repeated measures showed that the mean peri-implant bone loss increased progressively at a small amount over five years in both groups (four-MDI group = -0.36 ± 0.74; three-MDI group = -0.33 ± 0.27 mm; p < 0.05). However, an ANCOVA revealed no significant effects of the group (no significant difference between the three- and the four-MDI groups; F = 0.085; p = 0.771), gender (F = 0.023; p = 0.88), or covariate age (F = 1.95; p = 0.167) on the dependent variable: the 5-year MBL change. The success rate (together with successful survival) was 93.8% in the four-MDI group and 91.7% in the three-MDI group. The log-rank (Mantel-Cox) test revealed no significant differences between them (X2 = 0.373; p = 0.541). Conclusions: In patients with narrow ridges, the insertion of three MDIs in the mandible for overdenture retention can be equally as successful as the insertion of four MDIs.

Adaptation to New Dentures and 5 Years of Clinical Use: A Comparison between Complete Denture and Mini-implant Mandibular Overdenture Patients based on Oral Health-Related Quality of Life (OHRQoL) and Orofacial Esthetics.

Objective of work: It is unclear how long patients need to adapt to new dentures. This study assessed adaptation and five years of clinical use, comparing complete denture wearers (CDs) and mini-implant mandibular overdenture wearers opposing a maxillary CD (MDI-OD), based on oral health reported quality of life (OHRQoL) and orofacial esthetics (OES). Material and Methods: A total of 36 subjects in the CD group (25 females) and 30 subjects in the MDI group (20 females) completed the 5-year study. All patients received new CDs, but in the MDI-OD group, four mini-implants were inserted interforaminally in the mandible before denture manufacture. Participants filled in the OHIP-EDENT and OES questionnaires one day after dentures' delivery, on the 3rd, 8th, 15th, 30th day, and at the 1-, 3- and 5-year follow-up examinations. Statistical analysis comprised descriptive methods, X 2 test, independent t-test, Friedman, and Mann-Whitney test. Results and Conclusions: Both groups' adaptation to new dentures was completed within a month. The MDI-OD group had significantly better OHRQoL in all follow-ups except for the 3rd and 8th day, probably due to soreness and pain, the reason why the MDI-OD group had limitation in functioning in the first days after new dentures' delivery. Already after the third year and at the fifth year, OHRQoL worsened (p<0.01) in both groups. However it was significantly more pronounced in the conventional CD wearers (p<0.01) than in the MDI-OD group. Orofacial esthetics was highly scored in both groups. The scores dropped down only after three years, equally in both groups. Keywords: OHRQoL, OES, prospective study, complete dentures, mini-implants, adaptation. MeSH Terms: Complete Dentures; Dental Implants; Quality of Life; Dental Esthetics.

Pediatric patients' reasons for visiting dentists in all WHO regions.

BACKGROUND: Oral Function, Orofacial Pain, Orofacial Appearance, and Psychosocial Impact are the four oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL) dimensions (4D) or areas in which oral disorders impact pediatric patients. Using their dentists' assessment, the study aimed to evaluate whether pediatric dental patients' oral health concerns fit into the 4D of the Oral Health-Related Quality of Life (OHRQoL) construct. METHODS: Dentists who treat children from 32 countries and all WHO regions were selected from a web-based survey of 1580 international dentists. Dentists were asked if their pediatric patients with current or future oral health concerns fit into the 4D of the Oral Health-Related Quality of Life (OHRQoL) construct. Proportions of all pediatric patients' oral health problems and prevention needs were computed. FINDINGS: Data from 101 dentists treating children only and 523 dentists treating children and adults were included. For 90% of pediatric patients, their current oral health problems fit well in the four OHRQoL dimensions. For 91% of oral health problems they intended to prevent in the future were related to these dimensions as well. Both numbers increased to at least 96% when experts analyzed dentists´ explanations of why some oral health problems would not fit these four categories. CONCLUSIONS: The study revealed the four fundamental components of dental patients, i.e., the four OHRQoL dimensions (Oral Function, Orofacial Pain, Orofacial Appearance, and Psychosocial Impact) are also applicable for pediatric patients, regardless of whether they have current or future oral health concerns, and should be considered when measuring OHRQoL in the pediatric dental patient population.

Articular Eminence Morphology of American Historic and Contemporary Populations.

OBJECTIVES: This study was performed to determine the values of the articular eminence inclination (AEI), the articular eminence height (AEH), and the length of the articular eminence curved line (AEL) among American prehistoric and contemporary populations. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study was carried out on 120 human dry skulls divided into 4 groups: Illinois group (IP), Kentucky group (KP), African Americans group (AAP) and American Caucasians group (ACP). Each group comprised 30 human dry skulls. Measurements of AEI (by two methods), AEH and AEL were performed using computer software on 5 sagittal sections through silicone molds of the articular eminence. The obtained results were statistically analyzed at significance level of p < 0.05. RESULTS: No statistically significant differences of AEI, AEH and AEL values were obtained among American populations (IP, KP, AAP, ACP) neither by body side, sex and age (p > 0.05). The mean AEI M1 values ranged from 31.56° to 38.72°, the mean AEI M2 values ranged from 44.14° to 58.37°, the mean AEH ranged from 5.82 to 6.86 mm, and the mean AEL values ranged from 11.57 to 12.73 mm. CONCLUSIONS: AEI, AEH, AEL values are variables, but they did not differ significantly among American populations. Left-right differences as the result of natural body asymmetry were not statistically significant. Sex and age did not significantly affect the articular eminence morphology.

Why Patients Visit Dentists - A Study in all World Health Organization Regions.

OBJECTIVE: The dimensions of oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL) Oral Function, Orofacial Pain, Orofacial Appearance, and Psychosocial Impact are the major areas where patients are impacted by oral diseases and dental interventions. The aim of this study was to evaluate whether dental patients' reasons to visit the dentist fit the 4 OHRQoL dimensions. METHODS: Dentists (N = 1580) from 32 countries participated in a web-based survey. For their patients with current oral health problems, dentists were asked whether these problems were related to teeth, mouth, and jaws' function, pain, appearance, or psychosocial impact or whether they do not fit the aforementioned 4 categories. Dentists were also asked about their patients who intended to prevent future oral health problems. For both patient groups, the proportions of oral health problems falling into the 4 OHRQoL dimensions were calculated. RESULTS: For every 100 dental patients with current oral health problems, 96 had problems related to teeth, mouth, and jaws' function, pain, appearance, or psychosocial impact. For every 100 dental patients who wanted to prevent future oral health problems, 92 wanted to prevent problems related to these 4 OHRQoL dimensions. Both numbers increased to at least 98 of 100 patients when experts analyzed dentists' explanations of why some oral health problems would not fit the four dimension. For the remaining 2 of 100 patients, none of the dentist-provided explanations suggested evidence against the OHRQoL dimensions as the concepts that capture dental patients' suffering. CONCLUSION: Oral Function, Orofacial Pain, Orofacial Appearance, and Psychosocial Impact capture dental patients' oral health problems worldwide. These 4 OHRQoL dimensions offer a psychometrically sound and practical framework for patient care and research, identifying what is important to dental patients.